I have an old SL4/ria app, which I am looking to replace with breeze. I have a question about memory use and caching. My app loads lists of Jobs (a typical user would have access to about 1,000 of these jobs). Additionally, there are quite a few lookup entity types. I want to make sure these are cached well client-side, but updated per session. When a user opens a job, it loads many more related entities (anywhere from 200 - 800 additional entities) which compose multiple matrix-style views for the jobs. A user can view the list of jobs, or navigate to view 1 job at a time.
I feel that I should be concerned with memory management, especially not knowing how browsers might deal with this. Originally I felt this should all be 1 EntityManager and I would detachEntities when user navigates away from a job, but I'm thinking this might benefit from multiple managers by intended lifetime. Or perhaps I should create a new dataservice & EntityManager each time the user navigates to a new hash '/#/' area, since comments on clear() seems to indicate that this would be faster? If I did this, I suppose I will be using pub/sub to notify other viewmodels of changes to entities? This seems complex and defeating some of the benefits of breeze as the context.
Any tips or thoughts about this would be greatly appreciated.
I think I understand the question. I think I would use a multi-manager approach:
Lookups Manager - holds once-per session reference (lookup) entities
JobsView Manager - "readonly" list of Jobs in support of the JobsView
JobEditor Manager - One per edit session.
The Lookups Manager maintains the canonical copy of reference entities. You can fill it once with a single call to server (see docs for how). This Lookups Manager will Breeze-export these reference entities to other managers which Breeze-import them as they are created. I am assuming that, while numerous and diverse, the total memory footprint of reference entities is pretty low ... low enough that you can afford to have more than one copy in multiple managers. There are more complicated solutions if that is NOT so. But let that be for now.
The JobsView Manager has the necessary reference entities for its display. If you only displayed a projection of the Jobs, it would not have Jobs in cache. You might have an array and key map instead. Let's keep it simple and assume that it has all the Jobs but not their related entities.
You never save changes with this manager! When editing or creating a Job, your app always fires up a "Job Editor" view with its own VM and JobEditor Manager. Again, you import the reference entities you need and, when editing an existing Job, you import the Job too.
I would take this approach anyway ... not just because of memory concerns. I like isolating my edit sessions into sandboxes. Eases cancellation. Gives me a clean way to store pending changes in browser storage so that the user won't lose his/her work if the app/browser goes down. Opens the door to editing several Jobs at the same time ... without worrying about mutually dependent entities-with-changes. It's a proven pattern that we've used forever in SL apps and should apply as well in JS apps.
When a Job edit succeeds, You have to tell the local client world about it. Lots of ways to do that. If the ONLY place that needs to know is the JobsView, you can hardcode a backchannel into the app. If you want to be more clever, you can have a central singleton service that raises events specifically about Job saving. The JobsView and each new JobEditor communicate with this service. And if you want to be hip, you use an in-process "Event Aggregator" (your pub/sub) for this purpose. I'd probably be using Durandal for this app anyway and it has an event aggregator in the box.
Honestly, it's not that complicated to use and importing/exporting entities among managers is a ... ahem ... breeze. Well worth it compared to refreshing the Jobs List every time you return to it (although you'll want a "refresh button" too because OTHER users could be adding/changing those Jobs). You retain plenty of Breeze benefits: querying, validation, change-tracking, batch saves, entity navigation (those reference lists work "for free" in Breeze).
As a refinement, I don't know that I would automatically destroy the JobEditor view/viewmodel/manager when I returned to the JobsView. In my experience, people often return to the same Job that they just left. I might hold on to a view so you could go back and forth quickly. But now I'm getting tricky.
Related
I am currently implementing a web application in .net core(C#) using entity framework. While working on the project, I actually encountered quite a few challenges but I will start with the one which I think are most important. My questions are as follows:
Instead of frequent loading data from the database, I am having a set of static objects which is a mirror of the data in the database. However, it is tedious and error prone when I want to ensure any changes, i.e., adding/deleting/modifying of objects are being saved to the database at real time. Is there any good example or advice that I can refer to improve my approach to do this?
Another thing is that value of some objects' properties will be changed on the fly according to the value of some other objects' properties. Something like a spreadsheet where a cell's value will be changed automatically if the value in the cell that the formula is referring to changes. I do not have a solution to do this yet. Appreciate if anyone has any example that I can refer to. But this will add another layer of complexity to sync the changes of the objects in memory to database.
At the moment, I am unsure if there is any better approach. Appreciate if anyone can help. Thanks!
Basically, you're facing a problem that's called eventual consistency. Something changes and two or more systems need to be aware at the same time. The problem here is that both changes need to be applied in order to consider the operation successful. If either one fails, you need to know.
In your case, I would use the Azure Service Bus. You can create queues and put messages on a queue. An Azure Function would handle these queue messages. You would create two queues, one for database updates, and one for the in-memory update (I think changing this to a cache service may be something to think off). Now the advantage of these queues is that you can easily drop messages on these queues from anywhere. Because you mentioned the object is going to evolve, you may need to update these objects either in the database or in memory (cache).
Once you've done that, I'd create a topic, with two subscriptions. One forwarding messages to Queue 1, and the other to Queue 2. This will solve your primary problem. In case an object changes, just send it to the topic. Both changes (database and memory) will be executed automagically.
The only problem you have now, it that you mentioned you wanted to update the database in real-time. With this scenario, you're going to have to leave that.
Also, you need to make sure you have proper alerts in place for the queues so in case you did miss a message, or your functions didn't handle it well enough, you'll receive an alert to check & correct errors.
I'm totally agree with #nineedm's and answer, but there are also other solutions.
If you introduce cache, you will always face cache revalidation problem - you have to mark cache as invalid when data were changed. Sometimes it is easy, depending on nature of cached data and how often data are changed.
If you have just single application, MemoryCache can be enough with proper specified expiration options.
If there is a cluster - you have to look at Distributed Cache solutions, for example Redis. There is MS article about that Distributed caching in ASP.NET Core
I am working on an application where I have a connection to a database. The database contains from 300MB to 4GB worth of data as each customer has their own database. My issue that I am having is in gathering the data, because of the potential database size, just downloading and storing the information locally isn't possible. The data can get quite complex and can vary. For an example:
A customer has a Job and they want to search for that job from the app.
I then fetch a list of jobs matching the search criteria.
The customer sees the job they want to view and I start the gathering process.
This job can potentially touch many tables, sometimes repeatedly..
There is the jobs table, a relational table to map to a person. Then there is another table that contains non-customer relational information, then there are calendar events associated to the job, which in tun can associate different people. Then there are emails attached to the job, which in turn can bring in additional people and events.
So I have a working model that gathers all of this information. The problem I have is that I cannot figure out a great method of signaling to my view that the data is completely downloaded. My initial thought was to use the NotificationCenter to message when the certain parts of the task were finished, allowing the core Job object to notify the view when everything was complete.
I know this is a pretty generalized question, but I'm honestly stumped as to how to take an unknown number of table results and translate that into a notice that my app can actually use.
My initial recommendation would be Core Data. It's designed for this kind of problem. No, I'm not saying to download the entire database into Core Data. I'm saying to use Core Data to manage your object model, because that's what it's good at.
As you receive data from the server, compose it into NSManagedObjects and stick them in the data store. On the UI side, create an NSFetchedResultsController to keep you informed as the data updates asynchronously. You don't necessarily need to persist this store. You could just keep it in memory and throw it away whenever you're done with the query, but keeping it on disk could be a nice caching solution. Again, don't think of Core Data as "a local database." Think of it as a model persistence engine that you can query for objects.
One advantage of this model is that you can provide the best available data to the user as it becomes available. But say you really don't want to get the information until it's all available. That's fine, too. Just let the network side keep updating its context, and then only save it when everything's complete. That way NSFetchedResultsController gets a single atomic update. The nice things with Core Data is that it has these concepts built in, so you can adjust your update strategy without requiring massive redesign.
The Notification Center will work great for this.
Post the notification at logical points in your data load to trigger a UI update for your users.
I am trying to build an offline synchronization capability into my iOS App and would like to get some feedback/advice from the community on the strategy and best practice to be followed to do the same. The app details are as follows:
The app shows a digital catalog to users and allows them to perform actions like creating and placing orders, among others.
Currently the app only works when online, and we have APIs for all actions like viewing the catalog, creating/placing orders which return JSON data.
We would like to provide offline/synchronization capability to users, through which users can view the catalog and create/place orders while offline, and when they come online the order details will be synchronized and updated to our server.
We would also like to pull the latest data from the server, and have the app keep itself up to date in case of catalog changes or order changes that happened at the Server while the app was offline.
Can you guys help me to come with the best design and approach for handling this kind of functionality?
I have done something similar just in the beginning of this year. After I read about NSOperationQueue and NSOperation I did a straight forward approach:
Whenever an object is changed/added/... in my local database, I add a new "sync"-operation to the queue and I do not care about, if the app is online or offline (I added a reachability observer which either suspended the queue or takes it back working; of course, I do re-queueing if an error occurs (lost network during sync)). The operation itself reads/writes the database and does the networking stuff. My ViewController use a NSFetchedResultsController (with delegate=self) to get callbacks on changes. In some cases I needed some extra local data (it is about counting objects), where I have used NSManagedObjectContextObjectsDidChangeNotification.
Furthermore, I have used Multi-Context CoreData which sounded quite reasonable to use (I have only two contexts).
To get notified about changes from your server, I believe that iOS 7 has something new for you.
On the server side, you should read a little for the actual approach you want to go for: i.e. Data Synchronization by Dan Grover or Developing Android REST Client Applications (of course there are many more good articles out there).
Caution: you might be disappointed when you expect an easy solution. Your requirement is not unusual, but the solution might become more complex than you expect - depending on the "business rules" and other reasonable requirements. If you intelligently restrict your requirements you may find a solution which you can implement yourself, otherwise you may also consider to use a commercial product.
I could imagine, that if you design the business logic such that it takes an offline state into account and exposes this explicitly in the business logic, you may find a solution which you can implement yourself with moderate effort. What I mean by this is for example, when a user creates an order, it is initially in "not committed" stated. The order will only be committed when there is access to the server and if the server gives the "OK" that this order can actually be placed by this user. The server may also deny the order, sending corresponding messages to the user.
There are probably quite a few subtle issues that may arise due to the requirement of eventual consistency.
See also this question which contains pointers to solutions from commercial products, and if you visit their web sites give valuable information about the complexity of the problem and how this can be solved.
I have a project which provides users with a list of current tasks that need to be completed. Any user can complete any task, and so to ensure that only one user is working on a task at a time I need to be able to 'lock' it. I'm using SignalR for this, so a user requests a lock on a task, and if they are successful (ie. if noone else has locked it) then they will be able to access the further information that they need.
My problem is how to store the list of locked tasks. The original plan was simply to add an additional bit field 'IsLocked' to the Task table and update this when the user requested a lock and when the task was unlocked. We have about 300 concurrent users, however, and a task takes only about 3-4 minutes, meaning huge numbers of additional - and tiny - queries on the database. Therefore we were wondering about in-memory storage, simply storing a list of task ids in a 'lockedTasks' list.
I had considered using caching, but am unsure on the best ways to do this, or even if better alternatives exist. If anyone has any experience in this then some advice would be great thanks
I would avoid memory completely as IIS is not that great with it, if you found your self in the IIS need for refreshing the Application Pool for some sort of reason, your list is simply gone!
Maybe a MemCache system? If it does not loose things in the above way, but...
I would advice to be in the middle, IO File is fast that request data to a Database, specially if it's not in the same machine (witch for security reasons, it should never be), so... why not, and just to hold your list, you don't use one of the currently famous NoSQL database?
MongoDB is a document database that has a .NET Library and it's easy to use, it is not as fast as Memmory, but extremely quicker than Physical databases for what you want.
Normally the NoSQL Database will be hosted in the App_Data folder so it will be extremely fast to access and you can just hold there the task_id and user_id of all locked tasks.
Have you considered stateful filters?
Check out this links for more info:
ASP.NET MVC Filters and Statefulness
Brad Wilson: Advanced MVC
3 - (Video)
Brad Wilson: Advanced MVC 3 - (PDF)
I'm sorry, but if your app can't handle a single query every 3-4 minutes x 300 users, then you're doing something very wrong. Just browsing a site typically generates orders of magnitude more queries than that.
A bit of backstory: I am working on an web application that requires quite a bit of time to prep / crunch data before giving it to the user to edit / manipulate. The data request task ~ 15 / 20 secs to complete and a couple secs to process. Once there, the user can manipulate vaules on the fly. Any manipulation of values will require the data to be reprocessed completely.
Update: To avoid confusion, I am only making the data call 1 time (the 15 sec hit) and then wanting to keep the results in memory so that I will not have to call it again until the user is 100% done working with it. So, the first pull will take a while, but, using Ajax, I am going to hit the in-memory data to constantly update and keep the response time to around 2 secs or so (I hope).
In order to make this efficient, I am moving the intial data into memory and using Ajax calls back to the server so that I can reduce processing time to handle the recalculation that occurs w/ this user's updates.
Here is my question, with performance in mind, what would be the best way to storing this data, assuming that only 1 user will be working w/ this data at any given moment.
Also, the user could potentially be working in this process for a few hours. When the user is working w/ the data, I will need some kind of failsafe to save the user's current data (either in a db or in a serialized binary file) should their session be interrupted in some way. In other words, I will need a solution that has an appropriate hook to allow me to dump out the memory object's data in the case that the user gets disconnected / distracted for too long.
So far, here are my musings:
Session State - Pros: Locked to one user. Has the Session End event which will meet my failsafe requirements. Cons: Slowest perf of the my current options. The Session End event is sometimes tricky to ensure it fires properly.
Caching - Pros: Good Perf. Has access to dependencies which could be a bonus later down the line but not really useful in current scope. Cons: No easy failsafe step other than a write based on time intervals. Global in scope - will have to ensure that users do not collide w/ each other's work.
Static - Pros: Best Perf. Easies to maintain as I can directly leverage my current class structures. Cons: No easy failsafe step other than a write based on time intervals. Global in scope - will have to ensure that users do not collide w/ each other's work.
Does anyone have any suggestions / comments on what I option I should choose?
Thanks!
Update: Forgot to mention, I am using VB.Net, Asp.Net, and Sql Server 2005 to perform this task.
I'll vote for secret option #4: use the database for this. If you're talking about a 20+ second turnaround time on the data, you are not going to gain anything by trying to do this in-memory, given the limitations of the options you presented. You might as well set this up in the database (give it a table of its own, or even a separate database if the requirements are that large).
I'd go with the caching method of for storing the data across any page loads. You can name the cache you want to store the data in to avoid conflicts.
For tracking user-made changes, I'd go with a more old-school approach: append to a text file each time the user makes a change and then sweep that file at intervals to save changes back to DB. If you name the files based on the user/account or some other session-unique indicator then there's no issue with conflict and the app (or some other support app, which might be a better idea in general) can sweep through all such files and update the DB even if the session is over.
The first part of this can be adjusted to stagger the write out more: save changes to Session, then write that to file at intervals, then sweep the file at larger intervals. you can tune it to performance and choose what level of possible user-change loss will be possible.
Use the Session, but don't rely on it.
Simply, let the user "name" the dataset, and make a point of actively persisting it for the user, either automatically, or through something as simple as a "save" button.
You can not rely on the session simply because it is (typically) tied to the users browser instance. If they accidentally close the browser (click the X button, their PC crashes, etc.), then they lose all of their work. Which would be nasty.
Once the user has that kind of control over the "persistent" state of the data, you can rely on the Session to keep it in memory and leverage that as a cache.
I think you've pretty much just answered your question with the pros/cons. But if you are looking for some peer validation, my vote is for the Session. Although the performance is slower (do you know by how much slower?), your processing is going to take a long time regardless. Do you think the user will know the difference between 15 seconds and 17 seconds? Both are "forever" in web terms, so go with the one that seems easiest to implement.
perhaps a bit off topic. I'd recommend putting those long processing calls in asynchronous (not to be confused with AJAX's asynchronous) pages.
Take a look at this article and ping me back if it doesn't make sense.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163725.aspx
I suggest to create a copy of the data in a new database table (let's call it EDIT) as you send the initial results to the user. If performance is an issue, do this in a background thread.
As the user edits the data, update the table (also in a background thread if performance becomes an issue). If you have to use threads, you must make sure that the first thread is finished before you start updating the rows.
This allows a user to walk away, come back, even restart the browser and commit whenever she feels satisfied with the result.
One possible alternative to what the others mentioned, is to store the data on the client.
Assuming the dataset is not too large, and the code that manipulates it can be handled client side. You could store the data as an XML data island or JSON object. This data could then be manipulated/processed and handled all client side with no round trips to the server. If you need to persist this data back to the server the end resulting data could be posted via an AJAX or standard postback.
If this does not work with your requirements I'd go with just storing it on the SQL server as the other comment suggested.